DOCSLIB.ORG

Twenty Years After the Completion of the EU's Single Market Programme

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Twenty Years After the Completion of the EU's Single Market Programme blo gs.lse.ac.uk http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/11/08/single-market-egan/ Twenty years after the completion of the EU’s single market programme, member states have still not eliminated all barriers to trade. by Blog Admin The single market programme, launched by the European Commission in a 1985 white paper, put 1992 as a deadline for the completion of the single market. As Michelle Egan writes, twenty years on from the original 1992 deadline there still remain significant regulatory barriers between member states. While the Commission has proposed a number of new reforms to deepen the single market, the reforms will only be effective if they are fully embraced by member states. EU summits always acclaim the virtues of the single market; yet the publication of a new single market proposal last month made f ew headlines across Europe. Although the EU is celebrating the twentieth anniversary of the “1992″ single market program, with a number of public events across Europe, the lack of enthusiasm or endorsement f or current ef f orts to address the remaining barriers in Europe is striking. It may be that European leaders pushed into collective action by the sovereign debt crisis have been reluctant to push f or more Europe at a time of “integration f atigue.” But in advancing an agenda f or boosting cross-border activity, the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, has targeted energy, digital, and transport sectors as priorities f or deepening market integration. They f ace an uphill battle as the ref orm proposals, which come two years af ter a sweeping report on the state of the single market by Former Commissioner and now Italian Premier Mario Monti, provide a mixed bag of initiatives that lack the strategic ambition of the “1992″ legislative program. The European Commission will struggle to implement its single market plans by the proposed deadline at the end of 2014 f or a number of reasons. First, they have proposed a long list of proposals bundled together. Opening up energy, transportation, digital and business services may yield important gains. It is unclear what impact social entrepreneurship will have on business growth, productivity, and employment creation. Second, trying to boost consumer conf idence with initiatives such as passenger rights and transparency of banking f ees is laudable in itself , but during a period of Cre d it: Staxne t (Cre ative Co mmo ns BY NC SA) economic recession and high unemployment, consumer protection is not social cohesion. Job creation matters more. Third, as the euro crisis has escalated, member states are implementing major structural ref orms and austerity measures, making it harder to push f or more single market. With increased f rustration and protest at the terms and conditions imposed, extremist parties as well as domestic public opinion have tempered support f or unity and solidarity. All of this makes the case f or more Europe dif f icult. The world economy has changed signif icantly over the past twenty years with technology and innovation becoming more crucial elements in f ostering competitiveness and growth. European companies f ace some real constraints if they want to leverage the single market to compete globally. There are a number of obstacles that still need to be addressed to improve the business environment and restore investor conf idence. For Europe to address its economic challenges, it needs to f ocus on the single market f or services, as a means of addressing the productivity gap with the US, and realizing the untapped potential of its greatest asset. Services remain hampered by divergent country specif ic rules, whether it is special licenses, prof essional qualif ications, or constraints on use of home country inputs. The implementation of the services directive has only been partially successf ul. E-commerce is hindered by divergent rules on data privacy, consumer protection and on-line service provisions. A digital single market would yield substantial gains. Take e-books, f or example, where dif f erent platf orms and taxes result in electronic book sales of only 1 per cent compared to 31 per cent in the US. Copenhagen Economics have estimated the anticipated benef its f rom deepening the single market at 1 per cent of GDP. Some progress has been made. A single European patent process can slash costs and improve innovation. Recent agreement on a unitary patent court – to be based in three locations no less – is a crucial f irst step towards addressing the growing gap with China, US, Japan and Korea in terms of patents granted. But two issues are important to ensure that the single market delivers its potential and regains overall public support. The f irst issue is enf orcement of single market rules. Business has repeatedly expressed concern that single market rules need to work better in practice. In a 2011 poll 55 per cent of companies indicated they f ace high administrative barriers and 39 per cent perceived some discrimination against f oreign businesses. Greater attention must be given to addressing business and consumer complaints through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms rather than f ormal litigation. The inf ringement cases heard bef ore the European Court of Justice capture only a f raction of the barriers encountered in the single market, since many f irms may pref er to avoid costly litigation f or f ear of the impact on their export markets. The second issue is the need to address concerns of citizens and workers about the reduction of social rights. The single market proposals need to demonstrate more clearly the impact on growth, employment and social cohesion to deepen public support and legitimacy. The European Commission has shelved discussions on the relationship between social rights and market f reedoms. While this has ‘revived an old split that had never been healed’ between the clarif ication of worker rights in cross-border situations and the exercise of f reedom of establishment and right to provide services, the continuing legal uncertainty is problematic f or the single market. Anniversaries are meant to be important celebrations. Brussels may create a raf t of measures to deepen the single market but member states need to move beyond empty rhetorical support. Much of the legislation is already in place. But it needs to be implemented in a common and consistent manner to improve the overall business and investment environment. If the conditional political and f inancial support f or the euro area through agreements on supervisory mechanisms at the recent EU summit revealed the two-tier nature of Europe between the ins and outs, the single market proposals should be seen as the means to bridge the divisions that are emerging over budgets, banking and bailouts among member states. Monti’s recent remarks about the ‘potential disintegration’ of the single market under the pressures of the eurozone crisis should be a warning that dif f erent f acets of the single market still need to be addressed by all 27 member states. Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics. Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/SinMar _________________________________ About the author Michelle Egan – American University Michelle Egan is an Associate Prof essor at the School of International Service in the American University, Washington D.C and SIS Policy Scholar f ocusing on European political economy. Related posts: 1. Anglo-Dutch Cooperation continues to be important, especially in unlocking the f ull potential of the EU’s single market (12.2) 2. The past twenty years have seen global regulatory leadership shif t f rom the United States to the European Union. (13.4) 3. Europe’s prosperity is not to be built via political declarations and never-ending summits. Promoting f ree, f air and open international trade and removing the remaining barriers to an ef f ective single market in Europe are key f or f uture growth (19.4).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Directorate-General for Competition 16/03/2021
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION – DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR COMPETITION 16/03/2021 Chief Economist Assistants 01 Commission Priorities and Tobias MAASS Pierre REGIBEAU Director-General Strategic Coordination Agata MAZURKIEWICZ Adviser Antitrust CE.1:Empirical analysis in complex CE.2: Economic analysis in Olivier GUERSENT merger and antitrust cases merger, antitrust and Astrid COUSIN HR Business Correspondent State aid cases Harold NYSSENS 1) Svend ALBAEK Pierre REGIBEAU f.f. Claes BENGTSSON (Deputy to the Director) Principal Adviser: Ex-post economic evaluation Thomas DEISENHOFER Adviser State aid Deputy Director-General Adviser Antitrust Deputy Director-General Deputy Director-General Pascal SCHLOESSLEN Adviser Mergers MERGERS & Cartels Henri PIFFAUT* Dirk VAN ERPS ANTITRUST STATE AID Olivier GUERSENT f.f. Linsey MCCALLUM Carles ESTEVA MOSSO A G R Policy and Strategy H Inge BERNAERTS Cartels Horizontal Management Maria JASPERS State aid: General Scrutiny and Maria VELENTZA Enforcement Adviser Consumer Liaison Ales MUSIL G/1 Cartels I Karl SOUKUP Corinne DUSSART-LEFRET A/1 Antitrust case support and (Deputy to the Director) R/1 Registry and Transparency Glykeria DEMATAKI policy G/2 Cartels II H/1 Infrastructure and Regional aid Sophie MOONEN Hubert DE BROCA Brigitta RENNER-LOQUENZ R/2 Finance and Internal Compliance A/2 Mergers case support and H/2 R&D&I, IPCEI Sari SUURNAKKI G/3 Cartels III (Deputy to the Director) policy Claudia DE CESARIS and environment Inge BERNAERTS f.f. Demos SPATHARIS (Deputy to the Director) R/3 Information technology G/4 Cartels IV Leontina SANDU A/3 State aid case support and Gerald MIERSCH policy H/3 Fiscal aid Karl SOUKUP f.f.
    [Show full text]
  • EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 16.12.2019 COM(2019)
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 16.12.2019 COM(2019) 638 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION ON THE WORKING OF COMMITTEES DURING 2018 {SWD(2019) 441 final} EN EN REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION ON THE WORKING OF COMMITTEES DURING 2018 In accordance with Article 10(2) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers1 (the ‘Comitology Regulation’), the Commission hereby presents the annual report on the working of committees for 2018. This report gives an overview of developments in the comitology system in 2018 and a summary of the committees’ activities. It is accompanied by a staff working document containing detailed statistics on the work of the individual committees. 1. OVERVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS IN THE COMITOLOGY SYSTEM IN 2018 1.1. General development As described in the 2013 annnual report2, all comitology procedures provided for in the ‘old’ Comitology Decision3, with the exception of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, were automatically adapted to the new comitology procedures provided for in the Comitology Regulation. In 2018, the comitology committees were therefore operating under the procedures set out in the Comitology Regulation, i.e. advisory (Article 4) and examination (Article 5), as well as under the regulatory procedure with scrutiny set out in Article 5a of the Comitology Decision. The Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 20164 recalls, in its point 27, the need to align the regulatory procedure with scrutiny: ‘The three institutions acknowledge the need for the alignment of all existing legislation to the legal framework introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, and in particular the need to give high priority to the prompt alignment of all basic acts which still refer to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny.
    [Show full text]
  • José Manuel Barroso's Leadership of the European Commission
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Kassim, Hussein Working Paper A new model presidency: José Manuel Barroso's leadership of the European Commission WZB Discussion Paper, No. SP IV 2013-502 Provided in Cooperation with: WZB Berlin Social Science Center Suggested Citation: Kassim, Hussein (2013) : A new model presidency: José Manuel Barroso's leadership of the European Commission, WZB Discussion Paper, No. SP IV 2013-502, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB), Berlin This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/103427 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence
    [Show full text]
  • COLIN BROWN Deputy Head of Unit Dispute Settlement and Legal Aspects of Trade Policy Directorate-General for Trade European Commission
    United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law MR. COLIN BROWN Deputy Head of Unit Dispute Settlement and Legal Aspects of Trade Policy Directorate-General for Trade European Commission Colin Brown is a lawyer and Deputy Head of Unit of Unit F.2 - Dispute Settlement and Legal Aspects of Trade Policy in the Directorate General for Trade of the European Commission. He advises on a range of trade and investment issues. He leads the team of lawyers working on investor-state dispute settlement in the trade and investment policy of the European Union. He has been responsible for developing the EU’s approach to investor- state dispute settlement, led the negotiations on this issue with Canada; was the EU delegate to UNCITRAL during the preparation of the transparency rules; and is responsible for the Regulation on Financial Responsibility for investor-state dispute settlement. In his career with DG TRADE he has worked on all legal aspects of the work of the European Commission in the field of trade, in particular on EU FTAs, in providing advice on EU legislation and on WTO matters. He leads a team of lawyers working on the EU-US negotiations (TTIP). Before joining DG Trade in October 2006 he worked for 6 years for the Legal Service of the European Commission, where he litigated WTO and EU law cases. He has been chair of the Legal Advisory Committee of the Energy Charter Treaty since January 2004. He is visiting lecturer in WTO law at the Université catholique de Louvain in Belgium since 2009. He holds an LLB (first class Honours) from the Faculty of Law of the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, a Diploma in International Relations from the Bologna Center of the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University, Bologna, Italy and an LLM in European Law from the College of Europe, Bruges.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Central Bank's Independence and Its Relations with Economic Policy Makers
    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 31, Issue 6 2007 Article 3 The European Central Bank’s Independence and Its Relations with Economic Policy Makers Professor Dr. Rene´ Smits∗ ∗ Copyright c 2007 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj The European Central Bank’s Independence and Its Relations with Economic Policy Makers Professor Dr. Rene´ Smits Abstract In this Essay, written for the Fifty Years of European Union (“EU”) Law Conference organized by Fordham Law School, I intend to sketch the independent position of the European Central Bank (“ECB”) in the context of economic policy making within the European Union. I will briefly describe the law and the practice in respect of independence and economic-policy making, both the internal (domestic policies) and the external aspects (international policies). The law is stated as of February 25, 2008. THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK'S INDEPENDENCE AND ITS RELATIONS WITH ECONOMIC POLICY MAKERS ProfessorDr. Ren Smits* INTRODUCTION* In this Essay, written for the Fifty Years of European Union ("EU") Law Conference organized by Fordham Law School, I intend to sketch the independent position of the European Cen- tral Bank ("ECB") in the context of economic policy making within the European Union. I will briefly describe the law and the practice in respect of independence and economic-policy making, both the internal (domestic policies) and the external aspects (international policies). The law is
    [Show full text]
  • Information Guide Euroscepticism
    Information Guide Euroscepticism A guide to information sources on Euroscepticism, with hyperlinks to further sources of information within European Sources Online and on external websites Contents Introduction .................................................................................................. 2 Brief Historical Overview................................................................................. 2 Euro Crisis 2008 ............................................................................................ 3 European Elections 2014 ................................................................................ 5 Euroscepticism in Europe ................................................................................ 8 Eurosceptic organisations ......................................................................... 10 Eurosceptic thinktanks ............................................................................. 10 Transnational Eurosceptic parties and political groups .................................. 11 Eurocritical media ................................................................................... 12 EU Reaction ................................................................................................. 13 Information sources in the ESO database ........................................................ 14 Further information sources on the internet ..................................................... 14 Copyright © 2016 Cardiff EDC. All rights reserved. 1 Cardiff EDC is part of the University Library
    [Show full text]
  • The Netherlands in the EU: from the Centre to the Margins?
    Adriaan Schout and Jan Marinus Wiersma The Netherlands in the EU: From the Centre to the Margins? 1. From internal market narrative to a narrative of uncertainties In this post-2008 era of European integration, every year seems to have specific – and fundamental – European challenges. For the Netherlands, 2012 was a year in which it was highly uncertain how the Dutch would vote.1 The rather populist anti-EU party of Geert Wilders (PVV-Freedom Party) had proclaimed that the elections would be about and against the European Union. This strategy did not pay off as people voted for stability, also regarding the EU. However, existential doubts about European integration and the euro have persisted and even increased as the emergence of a referendum movement in early 2013 has shown. Although the number of signatures supporting the idea to consider a referendum about the future of the EU rose to close to 60.000 in a couple of months, anti-EU feelings have found less support than one could have expected on the basis of opinion polls. Nevertheless, a strong and persistent doubt about the EU seems evident in the Netherlands even though it has a fairly low level of priority in daily policy debates. For once because there are few real EU issues on the agenda and, secondly, because discussions on, for instance, Treaty changes or the meaning of a ‘political union’ are being downplayed. Pew Research2 showed that 39% of the Dutch would like to leave the EU and Eurobarometer indicates a drop in public support from 60% in 2012 to 45% in 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • DOES COHESION POLICY REDUCE EU DISCONTENT and EUROSCEPTICISM? Andrés Rodríguez-Pose Lewis Dijkstra
    DOES COHESION POLICY REDUCE EU DISCONTENT AND EUROSCEPTICISM? Andrés Rodríguez-Pose Lewis Dijkstra WORKING PAPER A series of short papers on regional Research and indicators produced by the Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy WP 04/2020 Regional and Urban Policy B ABSTRACT Some regions in Europe that have been heavily supported by the European Union’s cohesion policy have recently opted for parties with a strong Eurosceptic orientation. The results at the ballot box have been put forward as evidence that cohesion policy is ineffective for tackling the rising, European-wide wave of discontent. However, the evidence to support this view is scarce and, often, contradictory. This paper analyses the link between cohesion policy and the vote for Eurosceptic parties. It uses the share of votes cast for Eurosceptic parties in more than 63,000 electoral districts in national legislative elections in the EU28 to assess whether cohesion policy investment since 2000 has made a difference for the electoral support for parties opposed to European integration. The results indicate that cohesion policy investment is linked to a lower anti-EU vote. This result is robust to employing different econometric approaches, to considering the variety of European development funds, to different periods of investment, to different policy domains, to shifts in the unit of analysis, and to different levels of opposition by parties to the European project. The positive impact of cohesion policy investments on an area and a general awareness of these EU investments are likely to contribute to this result. Keywords: Euroscepticism, anti-system voting, populism, cohesion policy, elections, regions, Europe LEGAL NOTICE No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Union Approach to Disinformation and Misinformation the Case of the 2019 European Parliament Elections
    University of Strasbourg European Master’s Degree in Human Rights and Democratisation A.Y. 2018/2019 The European Union approach to disinformation and misinformation The case of the 2019 European Parliament elections Author: Shari Hinds Supervisor: Dr Florence Benoit- Rohmer Abstract In the last years, the phenomenon of so called “fake news” on social media has become more and more discussed, in particular after the 2016 US elections. The thesis examines how the European Union is approaching “fake news” on social media, taking the 2019 European Parliament elections as a case study. This research favours the words “disinformation” and “misinformation”, over “fake news”. It, firstly, explores the different way of spreading disinformation and misinformation and how this can affect our human rights. This thesis will, secondly, focus on the different approaches, remedies and solutions to false information, outlining their limits, in order to recommend to the European Union, the best policies to tackle the phenomenon. The research will, thirdly, focuses on how the European Institutions are currently approaching this issue on social media and the steps that have been taken to protect European citizens from disinformation and misinformation; at this purpose the relevant European policy documents will be analysed. This analysis is necessary to understand the ground of the EU elections. The thesis will conclude with the case study of 2019 European Parliament elections. It will find if there have been cases of disinformation on social media and if the actions taken by the European Union have been enough to protect the second largest elections in the world. Key words: fake news, disinformation, misinformation, co-regulation, Russian disinformation campaigns, European Union, 2019 European Parliament elections.
    [Show full text]
  • New Guidance on Article 22 EUMR Referrals to the European Commission
    ANTITRUST CLIENT BRIEFING New guidance on Article 22 EUMR referrals to the European Commission Latham & Watkins operates as a limited liability partnership worldwide with affiliated limited liability partnerships conducting the practice in France, Hong Kong, Italy, Singapore, and the United Kingdom and as an affiliated partnershipLatham conducting & Watkins the operatespractice inworldwide Japan. Latham as a limited & Watkins liability operates partnership in Seoul organized as a Foreign under the Legal laws Consul of thetant State Office. of Delaware Latham &(USA Watkins) with works affiliated in cooperation limited liability with partnerships the Law Office conducting of Salman the M. practice Al-Sudairi in France, in the Kingdom of SaudiItaly, Arabia. Singapore © Copyright, and 201the United9 Latham Kingdom & Watkins. and as All affiliatedRights Reserved. partnerships conducting the practice in Hong Kong and Japan. Latham & Watkins operates in South Korea as a Foreign Legal Consultant Office. 30 MarchLatham & Watkins works2021 in cooperation with the Law Office of Salman M. Al-Sudairi in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Under New York’s Code of Professional Responsibility, portions of this communication contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each representation. Please direct all inquiries regarding our conduct under New York’s Disciplinary Rules to Latham & Watkins LLP, 885 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022-4834, Phone: +1.212.906.1200. © Copyright 2021 Latham & Watkins. All Rights Reserved. ANTITRUST CLIENT BRIEFING At a glance The European Commission (EC) has published new guidance on the application of the referral mechanism set out in Article 22 of the EU merger regulation (EUMR) allowing for mergers falling below national merger thresholds to be referred to the EC.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Mechanism for Independent Scientific Advice in the European Commission Introduction – Why Is a New Mechanism Needed?
    A new mechanism for independent scientific advice in the European Commission Introduction – why is a new mechanism needed? • Scientific evidence increasingly important for policy making, a part of Better Regulation • Scientific advice needs to be independent, objective, interdisciplinary, transparent • And must take account of specific characteristic of EU policy making, e.g. • different national perspectives • principles of proportionality and subsidiarity How do national governments obtain independent scientific advice? • In most countries: Academies of Science play a key role, also Advisory Councils/ Committees. • Some countries (e.g US, UK, Ireland) appoint Chief Scientific Advisor, alongside academies and advisory bodies. • There is no single model or best practice! Use of scientific advice in the Commission • Already extensive use of scientific advice in specific policy areas: • Joint Research Centre providing in-house scientific support • Use of external experts - groups, contracted studies, as well as standing, independent, advisory committees. • Horizon 2020 finances research projects in support of EU policies (societal challenges). • But lack of a mechanism to provide timely, independent, high level scientific advice to meet needs across all policy areas. The proposed mechanism Strengthen existing arrangements and bring together the supply and demand for independent scientific advice, with two main new features: A structured relationship with scientific advisory bodies in Member States (e.g. national academies) – to benefit
    [Show full text]
  • Administrative Arrangement Between the United States Food and Drug
    ■Avßb Ą û 5 λ 3 d3 ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE THE UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND THE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION REGARDING TRADE IN BIVALVE MOLLUSCAN SHELLFISH 1. This Administrative Arrangement aims to strengthen the cooperation and exchange of information between the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety of the European Commission (DG SANTE) regarding trade in bivalve molluscan shellfish, including edible species of oysters, clams, cockles, mussels, and roe-on scallops, either shucked or in the shell, whole or in part. The procedures described in this Administrative Arrangement are intended to accord with applicable respective domestic legislation. 2. FDA and DG SANTE note that it is intended to commence trade regarding raw and processed bivalve molluscs harvested from Approved growing areas1 in the United States by participants in the U.S. National Sanitation Program (NSSP participants2), initially from Massachusetts and Washington, which are officially listed by DG SANTE on the “List of third countries and territories from which imports of live, chilled, frozen or processed bivalve molluscs for human consumption are permitted” (EU List), and raw bivalve molluscs harvested from eligible Class A production areas3 hi the European Union (EU), initially by the EU Member States of the Netherlands and Spain, which are officially listed by FDA on the U.S Interstate Certified Shellfish Shippers List (ICSSL). 3. In the context of handling the requests by NSSP participants to be added to the EU List: 3.1. FDA intends to submit to DG SANTE requests from NSSP participants seeking to be added to the EU List.
    [Show full text]